Is there a website that would accurately show the terrorist
states that USA companies are not allowed to sell technology to?
Specifically, data encryption. I want to make sure before I
process any orders.

I thought I had seen this on either the Treasury or State Dept., but
when I looked just now I couldn't find it immediately. I guess start
here and see where that leads. [url]http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/[/url]

Tom Palmquist typed (on Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:51:24AM -0400):[color=blue]
> mbennett wrote:[color=green]
>> On Oct 20, 11:08 am, Jeff Hyman <scol...@cactus.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Hello all fellow SCO friends,
>>>
>>> Is there a website that would accurately show the terrorist
>>> states that USA companies are not allowed to sell technology to?
>>> Specifically, data encryption. I want to make sure before I
>>> process any orders.
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>> Jeff[/color]
>>
>> I thought I had seen this on either the Treasury or State Dept., but
>> when I looked just now I couldn't find it immediately. I guess start
>> here and see where that leads. [url]http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/[/url]
>>
>> Mark
>>[/color]
>
> Also try: [url]http://www.state.gov/[/url]
>
> Tom[/color]

Thanks Tom and Mark!!!

- Jeff H

10-21-2008, 07:57 PM

unix

Re: Encryption Export Question

Jeff Hyman wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello all fellow SCO friends,
>
> Is there a website that would accurately show the terrorist
> states that USA companies are not allowed to sell technology to?[/color]

"Terrorist" States? Amazing concept, and a contradiction in itself, as a
terrorist is someone who wants to subvert the State order.

Perhaps the USA calls "terrorist States" those with which it is at war,
but neglects to officially declare such war in order to scape the Geneva
Convention's regulations?

Nice orwellian terminology, then!

10-21-2008, 08:58 PM

unix

Re: Encryption Export Question

Pepe typed (on Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:57:22PM +0200):[color=blue]
> Jeff Hyman wrote:[color=green]
>> Hello all fellow SCO friends,
>>
>> Is there a website that would accurately show the terrorist states that
>> USA companies are not allowed to sell technology to?[/color]
>
> "Terrorist" States? Amazing concept, and a contradiction in itself, as a
> terrorist is someone who wants to subvert the State order.
>
> Perhaps the USA calls "terrorist States" those with which it is at war, but
> neglects to officially declare such war in order to scape the Geneva
> Convention's regulations?
>
> Nice orwellian terminology, then![/color]

Pepe,

Other then thread drift, I didn't mean to offend you,
nor redefine the legal meaning of "Terrorist State". For
all I know that term is incorrect (if so, my fault).
It is a Federal Law that is meant to protect our country.
I like that idea and I love this country even if it's in
a state of "out-of-wack". In time, it will all be fixed.
Those that are unhappy in the USA are welcome to exit the border.
It's funny how the flow seems to be the other direction.

| Pepe typed (on Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:57:22PM +0200):
| > Jeff Hyman wrote:
| >> Hello all fellow SCO friends,
| >>
| >> Is there a website that would accurately show the terrorist states that
| >> USA companies are not allowed to sell technology to?
| >
| > "Terrorist" States? Amazing concept, and a contradiction in itself, as a
| > terrorist is someone who wants to subvert the State order.
| >
| > Perhaps the USA calls "terrorist States" those with which it is at war, but
| > neglects to officially declare such war in order to scape the Geneva
| > Convention's regulations?
| >
| > Nice orwellian terminology, then!
|
| Pepe,
|
| Other then thread drift, I didn't mean to offend you,
| nor redefine the legal meaning of "Terrorist State". For
| all I know that term is incorrect (if so, my fault).
| It is a Federal Law that is meant to protect our country.
| I like that idea and I love this country even if it's in
| a state of "out-of-wack". In time, it will all be fixed.
| Those that are unhappy in the USA are welcome to exit the border.
| It's funny how the flow seems to be the other direction.
|
| Hang in there,
| Jeff Hyman, USCG
| .--.
| ___________________________ .-. | | _____________________________________
| Lone Star Software Corp. | | | | .-. Home of World Famous LONE-TAR(tm)
| Cactus International, Inc. | |_| | | | Backup Software for UNIX and LINUX
| Sales: 800.525.8649 _ |___ |_| | 24x7 Support Available
| Support: 301.829.1622 _| ~- | ___| RESCUE-RANGER(tm) and AIR-BAG(tm)
| [url]http://www.LONE-TAR.com[/url] \, _} | | Disaster Recovery Software
| -------------------------- \( -- | | --------------------------------------
| | |

This has nothing to do with terrorism: these laws long predate the 'war on
terrorism', they date back to the cold war or even earlier. Encryption is
considered a 'munition', a material of war. Fortunately, the regulations were
ruled unconstitutional, but the regulations were almost instantaneously
reinstated in another department and the process is grinding its way back up
the court system to be ruled on again, which seems difficult in this terrorism
crazed administration.

The reference case on the old regulations from the State Department at the
State Department and rheir unconstitionality involve Dan Bernstein, the author
of PGP, and are roughly described here (
[url]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-202705.html[/url])

So they got moved to the Department of Commerce and were re-instated in almost
their original form within weeks. Here they are:
[url]http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/[/url]. You're going to want a good attorney to go
over them with you: a knowledge of what's already been permitted and what
isn't, and whom to speak with, will be priceless.

Thanks Bob. It has real meaning to me coming from you. It's nice
to know I'm not alone on this topic.

Hang in there,
Jeff H

10-22-2008, 04:33 PM

unix

Re: Encryption Export Question

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:[color=blue]
>mbennett wrote:[color=green]
>> On Oct 20, 11:08 am, Jeff Hyman <scol...@cactus.com> wrote:[/color][/color]
....[color=blue][color=green]
>> I thought I had seen this on either the Treasury or State Dept., but
>> when I looked just now I couldn't find it immediately. I guess start
>> here and see where that leads. [url]http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/[/url][/color][/color]
...[color=blue]
>This has nothing to do with terrorism: these laws long predate the 'war on
>terrorism', they date back to the cold war or even earlier. Encryption is
>considered a 'munition', a material of war. Fortunately, the regulations were
>ruled unconstitutional, but the regulations were almost instantaneously
>reinstated in another department and the process is grinding its way back up
>the court system to be ruled on again, which seems difficult in this terrorism
>crazed administration.[/color]

As John Perry Barlow said in a an SCO Forum keynote address, with
good encryption, taxation may be come voluntary.
[color=blue]
>The reference case on the old regulations from the State Department at the
>State Department and rheir unconstitionality involve Dan Bernstein, the author
>of PGP, and are roughly described here (
>[url]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-202705.html[/url])[/color]

I think that the developer was Phil Zimmerman, not Dan Bernstein.
Dan is author of qmail and djbdns, an alternative to BIND (Buggy
Internet Name Daemon).

The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun. -- Buckminster Fuller

10-22-2008, 05:02 PM

unix

Re: Encryption Export Question

Bill Campbell typed (on Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:33:41AM -0700):
| On Wed, Oct 22, 2008, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
| >mbennett wrote:
| >> On Oct 20, 11:08 am, Jeff Hyman <scol...@cactus.com> wrote:
| ...
| >> I thought I had seen this on either the Treasury or State Dept., but
| >> when I looked just now I couldn't find it immediately. I guess start
| >> here and see where that leads. [url]http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/[/url]
| ..
| >This has nothing to do with terrorism: these laws long predate the 'war on
| >terrorism', they date back to the cold war or even earlier. Encryption is
| >considered a 'munition', a material of war. Fortunately, the regulations were
| >ruled unconstitutional, but the regulations were almost instantaneously
| >reinstated in another department and the process is grinding its way back up
| >the court system to be ruled on again, which seems difficult in this terrorism
| >crazed administration.
|
| Governments don't like encryption, or anything else that hinders
| their Legal Plunder (see Frederic Bastiat's essay ``The Law'' for
| more details).
|
| As John Perry Barlow said in a an SCO Forum keynote address, with
| good encryption, taxation may be come voluntary.
|
| >The reference case on the old regulations from the State Department at the
| >State Department and rheir unconstitionality involve Dan Bernstein, the author
| >of PGP, and are roughly described here (
| >[url]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-202705.html[/url])
|
| I think that the developer was Phil Zimmerman, not Dan Bernstein.
| Dan is author of qmail and djbdns, an alternative to BIND (Buggy
| Internet Name Daemon).
|
| Bill

I can tell you that Government agencies are not allowed to
use (purchase) Encryption. They have rolled their own.

- Jeff H

10-22-2008, 10:24 PM

unix

Re: Terrorist States, was Re: Encryption Export Question

Jeff Hyman wrote:[color=blue]
> I hope Pepe did not, in any way, take my reply as bias toward him. I
> respect everyone equally, till its time to not respect someone.
> Meryl Haggard said it very clearly in his song "The Fightin' Side Of
> Me". Pepe has a right to feel anyway he wishes... and so do I.
> That's what makes this country great.[/color]

I appreciate your reply. I also like the USA, as in its people, but I
find their politicians and leaders to be totally intolerable, and their
President I think is a War Criminal, whose judgment will come in time
(in this life or in the other).
[color=blue]
> One day, a Federal Agent walks into my office and asks for the owner.
> He flashs a badge at me and says he wants to talk. I got a lump in
> my throat and it did not feel good.[/color]

So you got a courtesy visit from the Stasi to "inform you". Nice police
State. Pure Orwell, I tell you.

Also, I do not live in the USA (I used to several years ago, as a
student, but I don't think I will go back there ever more; certainly I
don't want to, and I hope my job never demands me to do so), and I also
enjoy freedom of speech. So I guess my country is equally "great". Plus
our Army doesn't throw bombs over the civil population to cause them
"shock and awe" like, I don't know... in the city of Baghdad, while
lying in the United Nations Organization about "weapons of mass
destruction", etc. And then, "other" States are the "terrorist
States"... It would be so funny if it wasn't so bloody.

[url]http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm[/url]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> "Terrorist" States? Amazing concept, and a contradiction in itself, as a
>> terrorist is someone who wants to subvert the State order.
>>
>> Perhaps the USA calls "terrorist States" those with which it is at war, but
>> neglects to officially declare such war in order to scape the Geneva
>> Convention's regulations?
>>
>> Nice orwellian terminology, then![/color]
>
> Other then thread drift, I didn't mean to offend you,
> nor redefine the legal meaning of "Terrorist State". For
> all I know that term is incorrect (if so, my fault).
> It is a Federal Law that is meant to protect our country.
> I like that idea and I love this country even if it's in
> a state of "out-of-wack". In time, it will all be fixed.
> Those that are unhappy in the USA are welcome to exit the border.[/color]

I think it is possible to be unhappy with some aspects of a particular
government and yet not feel obligated to leave forever the land of your
birth.
[color=blue]
> It's funny how the flow seems to be the other direction.[/color]

--
RGB

10-23-2008, 01:44 PM

unix

Re: Terrorist States, was Re: Encryption Export Question

Pepe typed (on Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:24:39AM +0200):[color=blue]
> Jeff Hyman wrote:[color=green]
>> I hope Pepe did not, in any way, take my reply as bias toward him. I
>> respect everyone equally, till its time to not respect someone. Meryl
>> Haggard said it very clearly in his song "The Fightin' Side Of Me". Pepe
>> has a right to feel anyway he wishes... and so do I. That's what makes
>> this country great.[/color]
>
> I appreciate your reply. I also like the USA, as in its people, but I
> find their politicians and leaders to be totally intolerable, and their
> President I think is a War Criminal, whose judgment will come in time
> (in this life or in the other).
>[color=green]
>> One day, a Federal Agent walks into my office and asks for the owner.
>> He flashs a badge at me and says he wants to talk. I got a lump in my
>> throat and it did not feel good.[/color]
>
> So you got a courtesy visit from the Stasi to "inform you". Nice police
> State. Pure Orwell, I tell you.
>
> Also, I do not live in the USA (I used to several years ago, as a
> student, but I don't think I will go back there ever more; certainly I
> don't want to, and I hope my job never demands me to do so), and I also
> enjoy freedom of speech. So I guess my country is equally "great". Plus our
> Army doesn't throw bombs over the civil population to cause them "shock and
> awe" like, I don't know... in the city of Baghdad, while lying in the
> United Nations Organization about "weapons of mass destruction", etc. And
> then, "other" States are the "terrorist States"... It would be so funny if
> it wasn't so bloody.[/color]

Pepe,

Your feedback is greatly appreciated. I think that since this a forum
for SCO related topics, that we leave well-enough alone. I'm sure there
are many arguments on both sides of the coin. There are probably forums
that focus on political topics, which is where this topic should go.

The answer to my original post has been addressed, for which I am
very thankful.

Bill Campbell wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:[color=green]
>> mbennett wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Oct 20, 11:08 am, Jeff Hyman <scol...@cactus.com> wrote:[/color][/color]
> ....[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I thought I had seen this on either the Treasury or State Dept., but
>>> when I looked just now I couldn't find it immediately. I guess start
>>> here and see where that leads. [url]http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/[/url][/color][/color]
> ...[color=green]
>> This has nothing to do with terrorism: these laws long predate the 'war on
>> terrorism', they date back to the cold war or even earlier. Encryption is
>> considered a 'munition', a material of war. Fortunately, the regulations were
>> ruled unconstitutional, but the regulations were almost instantaneously
>> reinstated in another department and the process is grinding its way back up
>> the court system to be ruled on again, which seems difficult in this terrorism
>> crazed administration.[/color]
>
> Governments don't like encryption, or anything else that hinders
> their Legal Plunder (see Frederic Bastiat's essay ``The Law'' for
> more details).
>
> As John Perry Barlow said in a an SCO Forum keynote address, with
> good encryption, taxation may be come voluntary.
>[color=green]
>> The reference case on the old regulations from the State Department at the
>> State Department and rheir unconstitionality involve Dan Bernstein, the author
>> of PGP, and are roughly described here (
>> [url]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-202705.html[/url])[/color]
>
> I think that the developer was Phil Zimmerman, not Dan Bernstein.
> Dan is author of qmail and djbdns, an alternative to BIND (Buggy
> Internet Name Daemon).[/color]

Gahhh, yes! I can't imagine how I mixed up those two!

10-24-2008, 12:41 AM

unix

Re: Encryption Export Question

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:29:15 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I think that the developer was Phil Zimmerman, not Dan Bernstein. Dan
>> is author of qmail and djbdns, an alternative to BIND (Buggy Internet
>> Name Daemon).[/color]
>
> Gahhh, yes! I can't imagine how I mixed up those two![/color]

Maybe because Bernstein had a lawsuit against the us government
[url]http://cr.yp.to/export/docs.html[/url]
regarding export of encryption, and Zimmerman was charged with exporting
encryption, but the charges were dropped.
[url]http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/background/index.html[/url]

Or something like that.

stonerfish

10-24-2008, 07:03 AM

unix

Re: Encryption Export Question

jellybean stonerfish wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:29:15 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I think that the developer was Phil Zimmerman, not Dan Bernstein. Dan
>>> is author of qmail and djbdns, an alternative to BIND (Buggy Internet
>>> Name Daemon).[/color]
>> Gahhh, yes! I can't imagine how I mixed up those two![/color]
>
> Maybe because Bernstein had a lawsuit against the us government
> [url]http://cr.yp.to/export/docs.html[/url]
> regarding export of encryption, and Zimmerman was charged with exporting
> encryption, but the charges were dropped.
> [url]http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/background/index.html[/url]
>
> Or something like that.
>
> stonerfish[/color]

Well. Yes, but they're fundamentally rather different people. Both brilliant,
but Zimmerman plays much nicely with others.